West Ham vs Chelsea
- Thread starter SW20
- Start date
Just coming to post about the same incident
However i cannot agtee with you at all if that's a red we might as well give up now. For me it doesn't tick any boxes for sfp. He's sent him off for kicking the ball, what's he supposed to do?!
How on earth VAR thinks it's a clear and obvious error I'll never know
However i cannot agtee with you at all if that's a red we might as well give up now. For me it doesn't tick any boxes for sfp. He's sent him off for kicking the ball, what's he supposed to do?!
How on earth VAR thinks it's a clear and obvious error I'll never know
I guess the clear and obvious error point is a fair one but that threshold doesn't really seem to apply anymore. Plenty of highly interpretative and 50/50 calls have been overturned with the assistance of VAR in the past.
As for this incident, I just thought with how high he was on the leg and being "studs up" to add to the force, meant it was likely to be considered serious foul play upon review. Especially when you consider some of the reds that have already been dished out this season for players being high on player's ankles and above.
Can't say I like it as a fan but I can understand the decision as a Ref.
James goodgame
New Member
, I personally don’t think it’s a red, what I don’t understand is the pundits reasoning of “there was no malice” does that even come into it?
The amount of times they mention the word "intent" when discussing possible yellow and red card challenges is embarrassing.
Just coming to post about this, too - but I do not agree with you at all!
In no way is that violent conduct, excessive force or endangering an opponent!
That is a mistake in my opinion and it’s a most a yellow card.
In no way is that violent conduct, excessive force or endangering an opponent!
That is a mistake in my opinion and it’s a most a yellow card.
Understand what you're saying. I don't think VAR helps the situation when the replays are massively slowed down. As we know, football is a game that is played at a fast pace, not a super slow one! So such replays perhaps have the effect of making incidents look a lot worse than they are.
Got to admit, I didn't think anything of it in real time but I think the Ref would've struggled to justify to his bosses at the PGMOL, the decision to not give a Red once he was given the replays to view.
Last edited:
In my opinion, once the referee sees the images and the height of Balbuena’s boot, he has no choice but to go for a red card. It feels unfair but the usual uninformed nonsense about intent being regurgitated by the pundits doesn’t change anything. It’s dangerous play. How many players go into challenges with a premeditated desire to hurt someone? I doubt it would ever be given without VAR, however (for better or for worse).
I totally get where you’re coming from (and I don’t ‘like’ the decision per se), but if I were in Kavangah’s position looking at those VAR replays, red would be the only option with his studs showing and the height of his foot. I also think the idea of a ‘natural follow through’ isn’t the best as it can be used to defend some pretty awful challenges.
cpw1978_
New Member
All the above is correct, but Balbuena doesn’t challenge for the ball, I think a lot of people are either not seeing this or ignoring it. The challenge is from Chilwell, Balbuena is under control of the ball, he kicks it. You cannot be punished for kicking a ball you are in control of.
Not remotely true I'm afraid.
Another failing of VAR protocol here, as again they seemed to study this in slow motion before reaching a decision. I still haven't seen it close up at full speed and I've watched 2 sets of highlights. It's a basic rule - slow mo and stills for point of contact only, as it can distort force and intent, but our top officials seem to constantly forget the most basic protocol
cpw1978_
New Member
What’s not remotely true? Obviously this is subjective but from my view, and I’ve seen 3 angles at full and slow speed on the IMG world feed, Balbuena clears the ball and his follow through is natural, Chilwell comes across to make a block and his standing foot slips, takes him into the path of Balbuena’s foot which is on its natural downward movement.
As for the VAR protocol, yes - totally agree slomo for facts not intensity.
As for the VAR protocol, yes - totally agree slomo for facts not intensity.
Could Chillwell’s (albeit belated) pressure make Balbuena’s action part of a ‘challenge’ for the ball (going off the glossary definition in the LOTG of a challenge being when the ball is ‘contested’) given he saw him coming? It’s a bit of a weak argument but I’m not sure we could conclusively call Dasilva’s red card on Hojberg from a couple of months ago a ‘challenge’ (and that was rightly seen as a clear red) if we used that logic.
As much as it feels wrong, I just can't see how the replay images don't show the endangering of an opponent.
Littlefish
New Member
Very curious. Under the current Laws that's neither a tackle or a challenge for the ball. Uncontested. Curious then how that can be interpreted as SFP?
Both players doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Both players doing what they are supposed to be doing.